About Jason Thibeault

Hi! I'm a tech guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS and science of all stripes. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.

I have opinions. So do you. You want to share them with me. I would like to do likewise. Please don't expect a platform for proselytizing that will go unchecked and unchallenged, though. Contact me via the clicky thingies under my banner.

The commenting rules are simple: don't piss me off. This rule has worked for me for a decade; I have never found a need for any other rule, because any other rules leads to rules-lawyering. Just remember -- this is my property, not yours.

Okay, so if this is something you can do, if this sort of thing is actually politically viable, how’s about Obama openly campaign on a constitutional amendment mandating that gay marriages be legal nationwide?
Hell, let’s say he makes a constitutional amendment that says that the decision about what entities can enter into what contracts and whether those contracts would be legal nationwide, is a federal level decision. That way if they go on to put a law on the books saying that the contract called “marriage” is between two mutually consenting human beings of any gender or race or creed or denomination, and these people get married, it’s legal nationwide.

If Mitt can be politically “brave” by staking his campaign on keeping gays (and women for that matter) from achieving or maintaining basic human rights, then Obama can certainly be truly brave and advocate for real progress by doing the exact opposite, rather than triangulating to appear the centrist pragmatist.

Whether you like all the other nonsense he couched the whole announcement in, Obama did something relatively brave by being the first president to support gay marriage. Maybe he can do gays one better by turning this election into a national referendum, while the public largely supports gay marriage. I’m sure it would motivate voters who favor equality over religiously-motivated bigotry.

Of course, it’s also a good possibility that this strategy would backfire and gay rights would falter as a result of Willard gaining momentum on this platform of unmitigated bigotry. It’s never a good idea to leave human rights up to the general populace, because they tend to squelch minority rights.

Like this:

Related

About the author

Hi! I'm a tech guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS and science of all stripes. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.

I have opinions. So do you. You want to share them with me. I would like to do likewise. Please don't expect a platform for proselytizing that will go unchecked and unchallenged, though. Contact me via the clicky thingies under my banner.

The commenting rules are simple: don't piss me off. This rule has worked for me for a decade; I have never found a need for any other rule, because any other rules leads to rules-lawyering. Just remember -- this is my property, not yours.

Is there anything else in the US constitution that could be considered to be in any way parallel – that is a specific prohibition to equal legal status for a particular subset of citizens?

Maybe Canadians should get into “general fortitude and marriage counselling” tourism. We could bring people from south of the border up here to help them get over their terrible weaknesses that makes them so fear their nation and marriages will dissolve because other people in their nation are allowed to have marriages too.

I really don’t understand how these people cannot see that they are doomed to be on the wrong side of history, that they will be derisively lumped in with slavery supporters, segregationists and other reactionary bigots.

“…USA Today/Gallup found 26 percent said they would be less likely to vote for Obama after his Wednesday announcement that he supports legalizing gay marriage, compared with 13 percent who said the announcement would make them more likely to vote for him.”

How the hell does that even work? That’s not what the Constitution is for, dumbasses. How about an amendment that says the entertainment industry can use law enforcement and the courts to harass, extort, and intimidate people. Or one that says you can’t wear purple on Wednesdays.

I really don’t understand how these people cannot see that they are doomed to be on the wrong side of history

– Forethought isn’t a priority.
– Legacy is about making now last as long as possible by resisting unfamiliar change.
– Past history is a collection of stories we tell ourselves for morale boosts rather than learning what really happened.
– Future history is about whether later generations agree with someone’s current narrative.
– Education is indoctrination to ensure they will agree.

Jason @8, does that not suggest to you that PZ’s take on it (“In for a penny, in for a pound, I say — I dare Obama to now stand up and fight for this right. None of this pussy-footing around — he’s going to get screwed by the haters already — so he might as well take a strong stand and earn the goddamned liberal/progressive vote.”) has merit?

@ #7 F: Actually, that is exactly what the Constitution is for, that is, whatever we wish.

Bear in mind it was used to count slaves as three-fifths of a person and Natives as zero (until the government struck the first provision out and Ponca Chief Standing Bear won his landmark case in the Supreme Court).

It was used to outlaw alcohol. It outlawed the right to vote for women and those under twenty-one.

It can be used to outlaw gay marriages as well, if such an amendment can be passed through the normal Constitutional mechanisms.

I wonder if Romney working for such an amendment would annul existing marriages though?

Anymouse, #12:It outlawed the right to vote for women and those under twenty-one.

Actually, the US Constitution never outlawed the right to vote for women, those under twenty-one, or anyone else. It did not have explicit guarantees that those individuals had the right to vote, but did not forbid a state, territory, or other jurisdiction to grant those rights if they wanted. In fact, before 1920, women had the right to vote in several states, which would have included voting for Federal level offices.

Maybe that was what you meant; if so, sorry for the pedantry.

Comments are closed.

The Orbit is a diverse collective of atheist and nonreligious bloggers committed to social justice, within and outside the secular community. For more information, please see our About Us page.

All content is copyright the authors except where otherwise noted. Contact the authors individually for further information.